IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________________ 

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, : CIVIL ACTION 

 : NO. 02-CV-4435 

 Plaintiff, : (Hon. Anita B. Brody) 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

DAVID FORREST AND : 

T. BEAUCLERC ROGERS IV, : Electronically Filed

 : 

 Defendants. : 

__________________________________________: 

DEFENDANTS T. BEAUCLERC ROGERS IV’S AND 

DAVID FORREST’S JOINDER IN THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF 

DEFENDANTS STANLEY MUNSON AND TARLO LYONS 

ON THE THEORY OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS

Defendants T. Beauclerc Rogers IV (“Rogers”) and David Forrest (“Forrest”), 

respectfully join in the September 15, 2004 Motions to Dismiss of defendants Stanley Munson 

and Tarlo Lyons, on the theory of forum non conveniens. 

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) initiated this action in July 2002 against 

just two defendants, Forrest, a citizen and resident of the United Kingdom, and Rogers who lives 

in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania. In June 2004, Lexington filed a Second Amended and 

Supplemental Complaint, which added four defendants to this action: Martin Fink (“Fink”), a 

California resident; New Beginnings Enterprises, LLC (“New Beginnings”), the California 

company with whom Fink is associated; Stanley Munson (“Munson”), an English solicitor; and 

Tarlo Lyons (“Tarlo Lyons”), a law firm with offices in London, England, with which Munson 

formerly practiced. Each of the newly joined defendants, with the exception of New Beginnings, 

Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 96 Filed 11/18/2004 Page 1 of 6
2

filed a motion to dismiss, which motions are pending before this Court. Rogers and Forrest 

previously filed motions to dismiss on several grounds, including forum non conveniens, which 

this Court denied on March 6, 2003, when Rogers and Forrest were the only defendants. Rogers 

and Forrest renew their requests for dismissal and hereby join in the motions of Stanley Munson 

and Tarlo Lyons because the joinder of those defendants compels the conclusion that England is 

the appropriate forum for this dispute. 

II. ARGUMENT

 Both Stanley Munson and Tarlo Lyons are London-based defendants, whose alleged 

misconduct occurred in London, and whose potential witnesses reside in London. Their joinder 

reinforces the connection of this suit to England, and not to Pennsylvania, and unmistakably tips 

the scales in favor of dismissal on the grounds of forum non coveniens. Plaintiff and all 

defendants except Rogers1

, Fink, and New Beginnings are located in England.2 The sources of 

proof and witnesses predominately reside in and around London, nearly all the operative events 

alleged took place in England between and among residents of that jurisdiction, and the only 

connection that Pennsylvania has to this case is that one defendant resides there. 

As stated in the defendants’ motions, the appropriate forum in which to litigate this action 

is London, England, where actions against many of the defendants already exist. Of the fifty-two 

(52) witnesses listed in plaintiff’s initial disclosures, at least as many major witnesses are based 

in the United Kingdom as in the United States. The Court should consider more than Plaintiffs’ 

witnesses, however. The majority of potential witnesses listed by both Forrest and Rogers also 

 

1

 Rogers previously agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts in London, England 

for purposes of this action. 

Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 96 Filed 11/18/2004 Page 2 of 6
3

reside in the United Kingdom, and both Tarlo Lyons and Stanley Munson aver that their 

potential witnesses reside in England. (See Tarlo Lyons Motion at 25; Stanley Munson Motion 

at 23). Indeed, Tarlo Lyons proposes to join additional parties (including the insurance brokers, 

Jardine Lloyd Thompson, and its broker Mark Drummond-Brady), all of whom are located in 

London. (See Tarlo Lyons Reply Br. at 21). Even Exhibit “B” to Plaintiffs’ own Brief in 

Opposition to Tarlo Lyons’ and Stanley Munson’s Motions to Dismiss makes clear that these UK 

based individuals and/or entities – either as parties or as witnesses – will be crucial to a trial of 

this matter with respect to all parties. 

Moreover, most of the documentary evidence is located abroad and is in the control of the 

administrator in London (several hundred boxes of documents), and/or the London witnesses. 

The disputed events occurred primarily in England, the alleged damages occurred in England, 

and Pennsylvania has only a negligible interest, if any, in the outcome of this litigation. 

 2

 Plaintiff is an international company with a London office, which office negotiated the 

insurance agreements at issue, through Plaintiff’s underwriters, Steven Mitchell and Keith 

Peacock.

Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 96 Filed 11/18/2004 Page 3 of 6
4

III. CONCLUSION 

For all of the forgoing reasons, Rogers and Forrest renew their requests for dismissal on 

the basis of forum non conveniens, and hereby join in the rationale for complete dismissal 

advanced by Stanley Munson and Tarlo Lyons. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Kevin Dooley Kent______________________

 James J. Rohn, Esquire, I.D. No. 21636 

 Nicholas M. Centrella, Esquire, I.D. No. 67666 

 Kevin Dooley Kent, Esquire, I.D. No. 85962 

 CONRAD O’BRIEN GELLMAN & ROHN, P.C. 

 1515 Market Street, 16th Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19102 

 (215) 864-9600 

Dated: November 18, 2004 Attorneys for defendant T. Beauclerc Rogers IV 

/s/ Shannon Hampton Sutherland __________

 Edward M. Dunham, Jr., I.D. No. 21550 

 Shannon Hampton Sutherland, I.D. No. 90108 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

 One Liberty Place 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396 

(215) 979-1148/1104 

Dated: November 18, 2004 Attorneys for defendant David Forrest 

Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 96 Filed 11/18/2004 Page 4 of 6
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the date set forth below, a true and correct copy of Defendants T. 

Beauclerc Rogers IV’s and David Forrest’s Joinder in the Motions to Dismiss of Defendants 

Stanley Munson and Tarlo Lyons on the theory of forum non conveniens was served by U.S. first 

class mail, postage prepaid, as follows:

Alexander Kerr, Esquire Neil G. Epstein, Esquire 

Stephen P. McFate, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 

McCarter & English, LLP 1515 Market Street 

Mellon Bank Center 9th Floor 

1735 Market Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, PA 19102 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 and 

 and Jeffery D. Farrow, Esquire 

Beverly Y. Lu, Esquire Mona Z. Hanna, Esquire 

Charles A. Adamek, Esquire Sanford Louis Michelman, Esquire 

Lord Bissell & Brook LLP Michelman & Robinson LLP 

300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 800 4 Hutton Centre, Suite 300 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 Santa Ana, CA 92707 

Attorneys for New Beginnings Enterprises Attorneys for Martin Fink

Edward P. Krugman, Esquire David L. Pennington, Esquire 

Cahill, Gordon & Reindel Harvey, Pennington, Ltd. 

80 Pine Street 1835 Market Street, 29th Floor 

New York, NY 10005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 and Attorney for Defendant, Tarlo Lyons 

Jeffrey R. Lerman, Esquire 

Montgomery, McCracken, Edward M. Dunham, Jr., Esquire 

 Walker & Rhoads, LLP Shannon Hampton Sutherland, Esquire 

123 South Broad Street Duane Morris, LLP 

Philadelphia, PA 19109 One Liberty Place 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Lexington Insurance Company Attorney for Defendant, David Forrest 

Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 96 Filed 11/18/2004 Page 5 of 6
6

 

Conrad O. Kattner, Esquire 

McShea Tecce, P.C. 

Mellon Bank Center, 16th Floor 

1735 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Attorney for Defendant, Stanley Munson 

 

 /s/ Kevin Dooley Kent___________ 

 Kevin Dooley Kent, Esquire 

Dated: November 18, 2004 

 

Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 96 Filed 11/18/2004 Page 6 of 6